Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Reopening transaction

  • 5 Jul 2022

    WANG WEICHEN v. PRAISE FORTUNE LTD

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1880
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA567/2020

    The judge found the defendant\u2019s account that the payment was an investment and the Signed Loan Agreement a sham to be inherently incredible and contradicted by contemporaneous WeChat messages and lack of substantive particulars or documentary evidence; accordingly there was no arguable basis to deny summary judgment for the outstanding principal of HK$4,000,000, but issues under s25 MLO as to reopening the transaction and extent of payable interest involve discretionary factual inquiries and should be determined at trial, so unconditional leave to defend was limited to the interest quest…

  • 23 Mar 2016

    LEI SHING HONG CREDIT LTD v. ACCUFAST LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    LEI SHING HONG CREDIT LTD v. ACCUFAST LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1749/2014

    The appeal was allowed because the Service Charge produced an effective interest rate exceeding 48% such that the transaction is prima facie extortionate under s.25 of the Money Lenders Ordinance and the substantive issues (misrepresentation and whether the provision is a penalty) cannot be resolved summarily; accordingly the Master's order awarding the stated sums, possession and costs was set aside to permit trial and reopening of the transaction.

  • 28 Jan 1994

    WONG KWAI FUN v. LI FUNG

    Citation
    WONG KWAI FUN v. LI FUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA5810/1986

    Court found on the balance of probabilities that a loan of $148,500 was made with post-dated cheques and that the effective interest exceeded 60% (about 400% p.a.), bringing the transactions within s.24 so the loan and all securities (power of attorney, 18/4/86 sale agreement, suit assignment) were illegal, unenforceable and void; court exercised s.25 power to reopen the transaction and ordered defendant to repay a reduced sum of $146,500; plaintiff was denied subrogation because the sums used to discharge prior mortgages did not establish an equitable subrogation in plaintiff's favour and, o…